You want to make your snide little comments, then respond to my post. Otherwise, shut the fuck up when I’m responding to someone else.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I usually don’t spoon fed illiterates:
We have a guy who’s never been convicted but who’d been with a left organization which “bombed” (deliberately warning people beforehand) government buildings as an act against vietnam (around '72, when Obama was like 10 or so) and who’s holding a respectable position now.
Obama, on the other hand, got a 200$ contribution to his re-election fund from him and went to the same Fund Board.
As if warning people beforehand excuses the bombing of a building.
The guy has admitted to being a part of the bombings, and was only let off by the ineptness of the courts.
So every one who opposed Vietnam, a horrible, immoral war, almost forty years ago as young activist is a terrorist.
And everyone who ate a pizza with him is one, too, by association?
No, everybody that bombed buildings to show their opposition is a terrorist. There is quite a difference between opposing a war and bombing your own governments buildings in opposition to a war. Do you see the difference?
Associating with this man, after knowing what he has done and that he is not even remorseful, is a huge (negative) reflection on one’s character.
Wait, was anyone killed in this “bombing”?
[/quote]
Does it matter?
[quote]tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I usually don’t spoon fed illiterates:
We have a guy who’s never been convicted but who’d been with a left organization which “bombed” (deliberately warning people beforehand) government buildings as an act against vietnam (around '72, when Obama was like 10 or so) and who’s holding a respectable position now.
Obama, on the other hand, got a 200$ contribution to his re-election fund from him and went to the same Fund Board.
As if warning people beforehand excuses the bombing of a building.
The guy has admitted to being a part of the bombings, and was only let off by the ineptness of the courts.
So every one who opposed Vietnam, a horrible, immoral war, almost forty years ago as young activist is a terrorist.
And everyone who ate a pizza with him is one, too, by association?
No, everybody that bombed buildings to show their opposition is a terrorist. There is quite a difference between opposing a war and bombing your own governments buildings in opposition to a war. Do you see the difference?
Associating with this man, after knowing what he has done and that he is not even remorseful, is a huge (negative) reflection on one’s character.
Wait, was anyone killed in this “bombing”?
Does it matter?[/quote]
You mean it doesn’t to you?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I usually don’t spoon fed illiterates:
We have a guy who’s never been convicted but who’d been with a left organization which “bombed” (deliberately warning people beforehand) government buildings as an act against vietnam (around '72, when Obama was like 10 or so) and who’s holding a respectable position now.
Obama, on the other hand, got a 200$ contribution to his re-election fund from him and went to the same Fund Board.
As if warning people beforehand excuses the bombing of a building.
The guy has admitted to being a part of the bombings, and was only let off by the ineptness of the courts.
So every one who opposed Vietnam, a horrible, immoral war, almost forty years ago as young activist is a terrorist.
And everyone who ate a pizza with him is one, too, by association?
No, everybody that bombed buildings to show their opposition is a terrorist. There is quite a difference between opposing a war and bombing your own governments buildings in opposition to a war. Do you see the difference?
Associating with this man, after knowing what he has done and that he is not even remorseful, is a huge (negative) reflection on one’s character.
Wait, was anyone killed in this “bombing”?
Does it matter?
You mean it doesn’t to you?[/quote]
Of course the bombing would have been worse had people died, but it doesn’t matter with the issue on hand. It doesn’t make it any more acceptable for Obama to associate with Ayers, and it does not change the principles on which Ayers was acting.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I usually don’t spoon fed illiterates:
We have a guy who’s never been convicted but who’d been with a left organization which “bombed” (deliberately warning people beforehand) government buildings as an act against vietnam (around '72, when Obama was like 10 or so) and who’s holding a respectable position now.
Obama, on the other hand, got a 200$ contribution to his re-election fund from him and went to the same Fund Board.
As if warning people beforehand excuses the bombing of a building.
The guy has admitted to being a part of the bombings, and was only let off by the ineptness of the courts.
So every one who opposed Vietnam, a horrible, immoral war, almost forty years ago as young activist is a terrorist.
And everyone who ate a pizza with him is one, too, by association?
No, everybody that bombed buildings to show their opposition is a terrorist. There is quite a difference between opposing a war and bombing your own governments buildings in opposition to a war. Do you see the difference?
Associating with this man, after knowing what he has done and that he is not even remorseful, is a huge (negative) reflection on one’s character.
Wait, was anyone killed in this “bombing”?
Does it matter?
You mean it doesn’t to you?
Of course the bombing would have been worse had people died, but it doesn’t matter with the issue on hand. It doesn’t make it any more acceptable for Obama to associate with Ayers, and it does not change the principles on which Ayers was acting.[/quote]
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
It’s official folks: The anti-war movement is the KKK on steroids.
Thunderbolt thinks so.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
[/quote]
So, your saying it’s ok then.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
So, your saying it’s ok then.[/quote]
I’m saying all crime is not equal and trying to make a connection between destruction of public property 40 years ago as part of a Anti-Vietnam War protest where no one was killed…with the murder of thousands of people on purpose with the goal of destroying an entire country’s infrastructure is pathetic at best and malicious at worst considering you are only doing so because it may get your choice for president in office.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m saying all crime is not equal and trying to make a connection between destruction of public property 40 years ago as part of a Anti-Vietnam War protest where no one was killed…with the murder of thousands of people on purpose with the goal of destroying an entire country’s infrastructure is pathetic at best and malicious at worst considering you are only doing so because it may get your choice for president in office.[/quote]
I will say it is not comparable to 911. But it is still not good.
And yes I do not agree with attacking people just for the purpose of getting a person into office. (Which the left has been doing for the past 8 years, and quite successfully I must say.)
But planting bombs is not a good thing, and with Ayers specifically stating that he still thinks he didn’t go far enough shows exactly what type of a person he is.
I really do not think Obama’s connections to him are that important, but it is looking like they may be trying to cover up how close they really were, and have threatened radio shows if they allow a certain person on to talk about it.
To me, that is the big issue with Obama’s campaign on this issue.
But Ayers is still a piece of shit regardless, and we do not need to act like it was no big deal. It was lucky that only his bomb maker was killed by those bombs. Anything could have happened when planting bombs in public places.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I’m saying all crime is not equal and trying to make a connection between destruction of public property 40 years ago as part of a Anti-Vietnam War protest where no one was killed…with the murder of thousands of people on purpose with the goal of destroying an entire country’s infrastructure is pathetic at best and malicious at worst considering you are only doing so because it may get your choice for president in office.
I will say it is not comparable to 911. But it is still not good.
And yes I do not agree with attacking people just for the purpose of getting a person into office. (Which the left has been doing for the past 8 years, and quite successfully I must say.)
But planting bombs is not a good thing, and with Ayers specifically stating that he still thinks he didn’t go far enough shows exactly what type of a person he is.
I really do not think Obama’s connections to him are that important, but it is looking like they may be trying to cover up how close they really were, and have threatened radio shows if they allow a certain person on to talk about it.
To me, that is the big issue with Obama’s campaign on this issue.
But Ayers is still a piece of shit regardless, and we do not need to act like it was no big deal. It was lucky that only his bomb maker was killed by those bombs. Anything could have happened when planting bombs in public places.[/quote]
The AMERICAN court system already handled this case, didn’t they? For anyone to ignore that and try to make this any more sinister 4 decades later is pretty…unpatriotic.
The world wasn’t even the same place 4 decades ago. Our current concept of “terrorism” didn’t even exist. Therefore, either judge this crime by the standards of that era alone…acknowledging that our court system has apparently already decided on this meaning his debt has been paid…if you believe in our legal system…or quit trying to connect Obama to a 40 year old crime that ended no lives.
That is coming from someone whose father nearly died in Vietnam and who has served in the military himself.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I’m saying all crime is not equal and trying to make a connection between destruction of public property 40 years ago as part of a Anti-Vietnam War protest where no one was killed…with the murder of thousands of people on purpose with the goal of destroying an entire country’s infrastructure is pathetic at best and malicious at worst considering you are only doing so because it may get your choice for president in office.
I will say it is not comparable to 911. But it is still not good.
And yes I do not agree with attacking people just for the purpose of getting a person into office. (Which the left has been doing for the past 8 years, and quite successfully I must say.)
But planting bombs is not a good thing, and with Ayers specifically stating that he still thinks he didn’t go far enough shows exactly what type of a person he is.
I really do not think Obama’s connections to him are that important, but it is looking like they may be trying to cover up how close they really were, and have threatened radio shows if they allow a certain person on to talk about it.
To me, that is the big issue with Obama’s campaign on this issue.
But Ayers is still a piece of shit regardless, and we do not need to act like it was no big deal. It was lucky that only his bomb maker was killed by those bombs. Anything could have happened when planting bombs in public places.
The AMERICAN court system already handled this case, didn’t they? For anyone to ignore that and try to make this any more sinister 4 decades later is pretty…unpatriotic.
The world wasn’t even the same place 4 decades ago. Our current concept of “terrorism” didn’t even exist. Therefore, either judge this crime by the standards of that era alone…acknowledging that our court system has apparently already decided on this meaning his debt has been paid…if you believe in our legal system…or quit trying to connect Obama to a 40 year old crime that ended no lives.
That is coming from someone whose father nearly died in Vietnam and who has served in the military himself.[/quote]
I believe it was thrown out on a technicality. However, the problem with Ayers is that he is unrepentant and thinks he should have done more as he stated in NY Times article on 9/11/01 of all days. He is still a radical leftist. And, attempted murder is still a pretty big deal.
To put it in context, if McCain had an association with someone who even attemted to bomb an abortion clinic yrs ago what do think the media response would be?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The AMERICAN court system already handled this case, didn’t they? For anyone to ignore that and try to make this any more sinister 4 decades later is pretty…unpatriotic.[/quote]
Unpatriotic? Are you trying to play games here?
Anyway, if what I have read is correct, then no the court system did not deal with it. He was in hiding, then some technicality due to prosecutorial misconduct resulted in the charges being dropped, which prompted him to come out of hiding.[quote]
The world wasn’t even the same place 4 decades ago. Our current concept of “terrorism” didn’t even exist. Therefore, either judge this crime by the standards of that era alone…acknowledging that our court system has apparently already decided on this meaning his debt has been paid…if you believe in our legal system…or quit trying to connect Obama to a 40 year old crime that ended no lives.[/quote]
I am not connecting Obama to the crime, only Ayers. I am only questioning his apparent cover up of his connections to Ayers in recent years, and threats of loss of licenses for radio stations. But I am not speaking for anyone else.
But it is also interesting to note that anything 4 decades old is no longer up for debate, and nobody is to be held responsible for the actions they took then. Are you going to hold this view for everyone?[quote]
That is coming from someone whose father nearly died in Vietnam and who has served in the military himself.[/quote]
I respect your fathers service, and yours.
My military service (if you can call it that,) is way less impressive. In during an uneventful peacetime, and out on a technicality. (Due to a guarantee of an A-school, and the fact that I was seriously pissed at the recruiter for railroading me into the wrong job for me, resulting in a loss of a potential $40K bonus.)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
[/quote]
Wow. How in the world did you come up with that? Nobody’s equated this with 9/11. The point that you miss is the principles on which Ayer’s acted, his complete lack of remorse, and the fact that Obama still associates with him and sees him as a quality individual. It’s really quite simple, and it’s sad to see this behavior excused.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
Wow. How in the world did you come up with that? Nobody’s equated this with 9/11. The point that you miss is the principles on which Ayer’s acted, his complete lack of remorse, and the fact that Obama still associates with him and sees him as a quality individual. It’s really quite simple, and it’s sad to see this behavior excused.
[/quote]
Welcome to Obama-supporterland. They have to be able to rationalize like this. How else can you stand behind someone who was friendlier with the slum-lords than his constituency?
How else can you stand behind a guy who was mentored by one of the biggest racists in the US?
How else can you follow a guy who blatantly hides his association with domestic terrorists?
If you don’t think Ayers is a terrorist, you are in denial. And you just proved to everyone the level of that denial.
No one gives a flying fuck about Ayers. It is Barry’s association with him that is the problem. More specifically it is Little Opie’s attempts to keep his relationship with a known domestic terrorist covered up.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
Wow. How in the world did you come up with that? Nobody’s equated this with 9/11. The point that you miss is the principles on which Ayer’s acted, his complete lack of remorse, and the fact that Obama still associates with him and sees him as a quality individual. It’s really quite simple, and it’s sad to see this behavior excused.
[/quote]
This was 40 years ago. Why would I care? This wasn’t last year. This was so many years ago, that I wasn’t even born yet and neither were you. This man has done nothing of note in the last 40 years that you could judge his character by other than a quote about the 40 year old incident?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
Wow. How in the world did you come up with that? Nobody’s equated this with 9/11. The point that you miss is the principles on which Ayer’s acted, his complete lack of remorse, and the fact that Obama still associates with him and sees him as a quality individual. It’s really quite simple, and it’s sad to see this behavior excused.
This was 40 years ago. Why would I care? This wasn’t last year. This was so many years ago, that I wasn’t even born yet and neither were you. This man has done nothing of note in the last 40 years that you could judge his character by other than a quote about the 40 year old incident?[/quote]
His statement that he wished he would have done more was not 40 yrs ago. He is still a radical nut job - the host who helped launch the messiah’s career.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
Wow. How in the world did you come up with that? Nobody’s equated this with 9/11. The point that you miss is the principles on which Ayer’s acted, his complete lack of remorse, and the fact that Obama still associates with him and sees him as a quality individual. It’s really quite simple, and it’s sad to see this behavior excused.
This was 40 years ago. Why would I care? This wasn’t last year. This was so many years ago, that I wasn’t even born yet and neither were you. This man has done nothing of note in the last 40 years that you could judge his character by other than a quote about the 40 year old incident?[/quote]
The comments he made, which clearly reflect that he still holds the same values, were actually made on 9/11/2001.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
Wow. How in the world did you come up with that? Nobody’s equated this with 9/11. The point that you miss is the principles on which Ayer’s acted, his complete lack of remorse, and the fact that Obama still associates with him and sees him as a quality individual. It’s really quite simple, and it’s sad to see this behavior excused.
This was 40 years ago. Why would I care? This wasn’t last year. This was so many years ago, that I wasn’t even born yet and neither were you. This man has done nothing of note in the last 40 years that you could judge his character by other than a quote about the 40 year old incident?
His statement that he wished he would have done more was not 40 yrs ago. He is still a radical nut job - the host who helped launch the messiah’s career.
[/quote]
I never said he wasn’t a crazy hippy. I said I don’t care and I am willing to bet that deep down, neither do any one of you. Not one of you brought this up during or after 9/11 until just now…because of Obama.
40 years ago, no one died. If even one single life had been lost, I could see this being an issue worth basing voting decisions on. I could care less that a crazy hippy would claim he would still act like a crazy hippy…even though he hasn’t done jack shit for 4 whole decades.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
bald eagle wrote:
Professor X wrote:
tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Of course. It simply means you are equating 40 year old glorified destruction of public property ONCE (while ignoring that they warned everyone beforehand apparently which is WHY no one got a more serious sentence) with “terrorism” on the same level as 9/11…and that makes sense to you.
Wow. How in the world did you come up with that? Nobody’s equated this with 9/11. The point that you miss is the principles on which Ayer’s acted, his complete lack of remorse, and the fact that Obama still associates with him and sees him as a quality individual. It’s really quite simple, and it’s sad to see this behavior excused.
This was 40 years ago. Why would I care? This wasn’t last year. This was so many years ago, that I wasn’t even born yet and neither were you. This man has done nothing of note in the last 40 years that you could judge his character by other than a quote about the 40 year old incident?
His statement that he wished he would have done more was not 40 yrs ago. He is still a radical nut job - the host who helped launch the messiah’s career.
I never said he wasn’t a crazy hippy. I said I don’t care and I am willing to bet that deep down, neither do any one of you. Not one of you brought this up during or after 9/11 until just now…because of Obama.
40 years ago, no one died. If even one single life had been lost, I could see this being an issue worth basing voting decisions on. I could care less that a crazy hippy would claim he would still act like a crazy hippy…even though he hasn’t done jack shit for 4 whole decades.[/quote]
It would not bother you if McCain was friendly with and served on boards with a former abortion clinic bomber - as long as no one got hurt? Is that your test? No one got hurt.
[quote]bald eagle wrote:
It would not bother you if McCain was friendly with and served on boards with a former abortion clinic bomber - as long as no one got hurt? Is that your test? No one got hurt.
[/quote]
That very much is my test if that “abortion clinic bombing” happened HALF A FUCKING CENTURY AGO.
Not to mention that you all seem to be trying to find something new “by association” on Obama every single week. It would be a shame if anyone finally thought that thou dost protest too much and it backfired on you.